vrm 



• S6 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



Y 





^ DT 933 
.S6 
Copy 1 







Foreign Affairs and Domestic Obstacles. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, 



OF MICHIGAN, 



IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



TUESDAY, FEBRUARY ,6, 1900. 







£ 



i 

WASHINGTON. 
I900. 



V7 

Cong. Record Of £•[ 
10 Ja.' 01 



3TT<\-3"3 



Foreign Affairs and Domestic Obstacles. 



SPEEG'H 

OF 

HON. WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 7911) making appropri- 
ations for the diplomatic and consular service for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1901— 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH said: 

Mr. Chairman: The bill under consideration makes an appro- 
priation for the consular and diplomatic service of our country. 
No more important measure will be presented for our considera- 
tion. Very little attention has thus far been given in debate to the 
specific provisions of the bill, the result of patient and laborious 
care on the part of the committee, and especially commendable 
to the distinguished and able chairman. 

Many suggestions have been made by members of the commit- 
tee and others during its preparation, looking to the improvement 
of the foreign service; and I have no doubt whatever, but for the 
rule which pre* ents new legislation on general appropriation bills, 
some of these suggestions might have met with favor. 

Notice was given to the committee of my desire to incorporate 
a new provision in the bill authorizing a minister resident to the 
Orange Free State and the South African Republic, not for the 
purpose of adding to our perplexities, but because of the growing 
importance of our relations to those countries and the desire to 
afford to the President, whenever he might think proper, this 
wider latitude for diplomatic relationship. 

Realizing the hostility of our committee to this plan in the pres- 
ent bill, and the fruitlessness of such an effort in the face of a 
single objection. w T hich I am advised will be forthcoming, I have 
concluded not to press the matter in violation of the rules, with 
4051 3 



which every member is supposed to be familiar, but shall content 
myself by bringing in a bill in the usual and orderly way. 
v Mr. Chairman, much discussion has been going oti in the public 
press and in Congress regarding our foreign affairs and much 
about the foreign affairs of other countries. It is not my purpose 
to traverse these well-worn paths, but to briefly point out the dif- 
ficulties of our position and fix some of the responsibility therefor. 

A very large and representative element in our country has 
placed itself in opposition to the' annexation of new territory by 
the United States whenever it has been attempted in the past. 
There was much respectable opposition to the annexation of Louisi- 
ana, Texas, and that vast empire of the West now constituting a 
veritable bulwark of American States; opposition loud and demon- 
strative against the cherished idea of President Grant to make 
Santo Domingo a part of the American Union, when it was offered 
to our country merely for the asking and defeated out of pure 
spite by a tie vote in the Senate — that rich gem of the Caribbean 
Sea, the natural resting place and rendezvous of our West Indian 
fleet. 

The distinguished representative of this Government in the 
Hawaiian Islands under the Administration of President Harri- 
son, and at a critical juncture in the affairs of that Pacific terri- 
tory, raised the American flag with the concurrence of the author- 
ities of the Hawaiian group. 

These islands had long been under the care and protection of our 
country. European powers understood that our interests were 
paramount there, and no other government regarded these islands 
as open to conquest. The attitude of our country was hailed with 
delight and satisfaction by the people there, and for the first time 
they felt themselves relieved from the doubt and anxiety of main- 
taining public order. 

President Harrison promptly submitted a treaty of annexation 
to the Senate, but before it was acted upon the Administration 
changed. The Democratic party came into power; the treaty of 
annexation was withdrawn and a commissioner with paramount 
authority dispatched to these islands to connive and thwart the 
manifest purpose of his predecessor. 

The country well remembers the unjustifiable conduct of the 

4051 



\ 



Democratic party at that time, and it disapproved this backward 
step. So soon as an opportunity was presented, the wrong done 
by Commissioner Blount was remedied, and these islands came 
legally, effectively, permanently within the legal limits of our 
sovereignty. [Applause.] 

Were we wise in this action? Everyone now admits it. The 
danger of hostile attack upon our western coast has been re- 
duced, and no foreign fleet hovers about this Pacific stronghold 
prepared to dash upon our coast at the slightest provocation. 

The dream and hope and expectation of our statesmen, strate- 
gists, and sailors received its final consummation when annexa- 
tion became an accomplished fact. Is there a man upon the other 
side of this Chamber who has the temerity to now rise in his 
place and say that he regrets the course pursued by the Repub- 
lican party in this matter? 

When the last revolution of the Cuban people was at its height; 
when they were entitled to belligerent rights under every rule of 
international law; when they had held at bay 200,000 soldiers, the 
flower of the Spanish army, and had driven back to Spain every 
prominent general who had been sent over for the purpose of ac- 
complishing the pacification of the island; when they had main- 
tained a separate government for upward of three years and the 
island was torn with war, devastated with fire and famine, and 
depopulated with disease and starvation from end to end: who was 
it that opposed their recognition as belligerents? Why, of course, 
it was a Democratic President, and his action was sustained for 
many months by his party in the Congress of the United States. 
The prayer of the struggling, the parched lips of the dying, the cry 
of distress from women and little children, were not heard until 
the Democratic party was retired from power and the Republican 
party installed in its p^ce. [Applause.] 

From what source does this wail of political opposition to the 
annexation of the Philippine Islands come? Who is it that finds 
most fault and is loudest in denunciation of our conduct? No 
less a personage than the late leader of the Democratic party in a 
fruitless Presidential contest, who, if my memory serves me right, 
was, if it be a crime, particeps criminis in our action in this re- 
gard, for he not only enlisted in the Army to put down the power 

4051 



6 

of Spain, knowing that the fruits of war would dispossess her of 
her territory wherever it was the disposition of this Government 
to strike, but he could scarcely wait to be discharged before he 
posted off to Washington to advise the hesitating and halting 
Democrats in the United States Senate that they should ratify the 
Paris treaty of peace, which provided that the Philippine Archi- 
pelago, Puerto Rico, and the island of Guam should become part 
of the territory of the United States [applause] , and providing 
also for the payment of the $20,000,000 agreed upon in this con- 
vention. How often since, with a brazenness and effrontery 
unequaled, has he berated the Government and its high officers 
for doing the very thing which he himself advised and to which 
he was a party? 

From what source does this criticism come, I ask again, for our 
policy as to the Philippine Islands and Puerto Rico and Guam? 
It comes from the disorganized, disordered, distracted organiza- 
tion represented upon the other side of this Chamber, occasionally 
sprinkled with a few well-meaning but misguided and mischievous 
critics, who, having taken a wrong position, have not the courage 
to change it. 

When the declaration of war was made with Spain it contained 
a proposition binding upon our Government a certain course of 
conduct with reference to the future government of Cuba. I 
regretted that condition then and I regret it now. From what 
source did that provision emanate? It was tacked ori to the decla- 
ration in the Senate of the United States by a Populistic Senator 
as a mere sop to the jealous powers of Europe. 

Who are they, Mr. Chairman, who have upon every occasion given 
aid and comfort to the enemies of our country in rebellion against 
the flag borne so bravely by Lawton and Logan and the soldiers 
of our Union in that far-off land? Democrats, Populists. Sir, 
they have criticised the President for not acting earlier in Cuba; 
have criticised the President for acting at all in the Philippines. 
We can not satisfy them. They urged ns to war with Spain before 
the country was ready, and want us to stop before we are through. 
The Democratic party were eager for our soldiers to go into Cuba 
and, lo and behold, are as eager for them to get out. You are a 
party of negation, fault-finding, demagogy, and demoralization, 
4051 



You complain of the treaty of peace, ratified tinder the wtip 
and spur of public opinion, many Democrats being forced to vote 
therefor; and now, with sublime impudence, you arise here upon 
every occasion to find fault with us for occupying the ceded ter- 
ritory. Consistency, thou art a jewel, but indeed rare upon the 
other side of this Chamber. [Applause.] 

Complaining of our embroilment in the affairs of the far east, 
to which point you say we have unlawfully stretched the Con- 
stitution, you now seek to involve our country in the affairs of 
the South African Republic. Can we safely be governed by their 
advice? When has it been wise and helpful? I pause for a reply, 
and ; ' the only answer is the echo of your wailing cry." 

You accuse us of making an alliance with England. What for? 
The occasion does not exist, and the desire is not present in the 
heart or mind of any worthy public official. The charge is base- 
less, unworthy its authors, and intended merely as a cheap scare- 
crow to alarm timid people. 

The only alliance known to me between England and the United 
States was dissolved yesterday by mutual agreement. It was 
made before the Republican party was born, and is known as the 
Clayton-Bulwer treaty, providing for the joint use and occupation 
of a canal across the Isthmus. It was an ill-gotten child and 
nobody regrets its demise. 

Alliance with England! Intangible, indefinite, indistinct hallu- 
cination, born in the small brain of a distorted demagogue for 
political purposes in this campaign only! [Applause.] 

For several weeks past the tender sympathies of the American 
people have been aroused and their interest excited in the unjusti- 
fiable war now being waged by England in South Africa. Public 
meetings have been held, resolutions of sympathy adopted, and 
funds raised to ameliorate suffering and distress— all commenda- 
ble, praiseworthy manifestations of the federation of mankind 
and humanity's interest in humanity, though seas divide and con- 
tinents separate. [Applause.] 

Demonstrations of this character are cosmopolitan, embracing 
Americans, native and foreign born, but whether of Dutch, Ger- 
man, Irish, Scandinavian, or Polish descent, they vie equally with 
one another in upholding the right and condemning the wrong. 

4051 



8 

Their love of liberty may have been born in the throes of revolu- 
tion. The ax of the Duke of Alva may have been made crimson 
with the blood of ancestors spotless in the sight of heaven, or their 
native soil despoiled and they driven forth into the world without 
a country, save, perhaps, this God-given land of their adoption 
where the bright bow of promise lured them. Emigrants though 
they were, they have been true and loyal to the country through 
storm and trial. 

I have the honor to represent upon this floor more Holland- 
Americans than any member here. They are among the best 
citizens of our Commonwealth. Honest, sturdy, self-reliant, 
frugal, they plod the weary path of life with hope as their guid- 
ing star and faith in the life to come. 

Sirs, I would consider myself unworthy to represent them here 
if for a moment I yielded to the precipitate pressure of the over- 
zealous or did any act that might in its consequences place our 
country in a false light in the eyes of the world, involve the de- 
struction of the salutary doctrine enunciated by Monroe, or lessen 
the feeling of security now enjoyed by all classes of our citizen- 
ship. A man in the private walks of life is responsible only to his 
conscience — may give expression to his feelings unrestrained — but 
those charged with official responsibility must never forget that 
no matter how many are pro-English or pro-Boer, it is his bounden 
duty under the Constitution he has sworn to uphold to be openly, 
avowedly, loyally pro- American. [Applause.] 

Gentlemen upon the other side of this Chamber mistake the 
character of those sympathizing with the Boer and underestimate 
their love of liberty and devotion to America if they think these 
sturdy men would for an instant imperil our institutions or impair 
the security of our homes, the peace of our firesides, or cast dis- 
credit upon our Government by any hasty, unwise, unlawful, or 
premature act. 

Yesterday upon this floor, in the heat of debate, a distinguished 
and able Representative, after detailing the conquests of England, 
expressed the wish that this last war in South Africa might work 
the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Shame! Shame! 
Would you welcome the fall of a vast empire, bringing wreck 
and ruin upon the millions of peasants and yeomanry who are 
4051 



only temporarily represented by a foreign secretary, bent upon 
his present nnholy mission? Far, far more preferable be it said 
that Joseph Chamberlain misinterprets the will of the English 
people. Public sentiment does not sustain him at home, and the 
wide, wide world is encircled with disapproval. 

The ministry overstepped when they undertook to interfere in the 
domestic affairs of the South African Republic. I need not go to 
the other side of this Chamber for witnesses. 1 can summon to 
the bar of public opinion many of the foremost statesmen of Eng- 
land. Take, for example, the uncontradicted statements of James 
Brice, W. T. Stead, of Sir William Vernon-Harcourt, the great 
Liberal leader of England and formerly in the cabinet of Glad- 
stone, who says: 

That convention as it was called, of 1881, reserved to Great Britain the 
right of veto upon treaties with foreign states. Secondly, in regard to its 
internal administration, it limited, in a certain degree, the internal govern 
ment and autonomy of the Transvaal State, but as Lord Derby, who was 
then colonial secretary, stated (I give his words), "In all other respects en- 
tire freedom of action was accorded not inconsistent with the rights expressly 
reserved," so that in the convection of 1881— follow me here— it was in that 
first convention of 1881 the independence so limited was expressed by the 
word suzerainty, a vague word, but one which was employed in that con- 
vention of 1881. 

Then as for the new convention. You have a convention in which the 
word "suzerainty" has disappeared. You have a reservation of the control 
of this country over the treaty relations of the Transvaal, and what was the 
result of that new convention? The result of that new convention was stated 
by Lord Derby; and now this is a very important statement. He said: 

" By the omission of those articles in the convention of 1881, which assigned 
to Her Majesty and the British Government certain specific powers and func- 
tions connected with the internal government and the foreign relations, your 
Government will be left free to govern the country without intei'ference, to 
conduct its diplomatic intercourse and shape its foreign policy, subject only 
to the requirements embodied in the fourth article of the new draft that any 
treaty with a foreign state shall not have effect without the approval of the 
Queen." 

Therefore, I think you may take it with absolute certainty that the new 
convention of 1884 was this : It kept the control of foreign affairs under the 
veto of the British Government, and in respect of their internal affairs 
struck out the word " suzerainty," leaving or giving to the people of the 
Transvaal absolute internal authority — home rule, in fact, for themselves. 

Why should we copy an old preamble in a new convention? In the pream- 
ble of 1884 the word " suzerainty " disappears, and it is not found in any of the 
articles of that convention. This may seem rather technical to you, but it 
really lies at the bottom of what is at issue to-day. * * * 

Mr. W. H. Smith, who was the respected leader of the House of Commons, 
as the representative of that Government, said: 

" The convention of London made in 1884 between Her Majesty and the 
South African Republic contains no express reservation of the Queen's right 
4051 



10 

of suzerainty; and though Her Majesty retains under the convention the 
power of refusing to sanction the treaties made by the South African Re- 
public with foreign states and nations and with certain native tribes, the 
cardinal principle of that settlement [mark this] was that the internal gov- 
ernment and legislation of the South African Republic shall not be inter- 
fered with. What is the use of talking of the existing of suzerainty over 
their international affairs reserved in the preamble of the convention of 1881 
tvhich was done away with by the convention of 1884? " 

Clearly no legal right existed in Great Britain to regulate the 
suffrage laws and fix new qualifications for electors. This was a 
domestic affair, to be regulated by the Government of the Trans- 
vaal. 

In his dispatch of December 31, 1895, Mr. Chamberlain defined 
the South African Republic as "a foreign State which is in 
friendly treaty relations with Great Britain." 

Again, on May 8, 1896, he said in the House of Commons. 

To go to war with President Kruger in order to force upon him reform in in- 
ternal affairs of his State, in which secretaries of state, standing in this place, 
have repudiated all right of interference— that would be a course of action 
as immoral as it would be unwise. 

To whom shall he now answer for this deplorable war, with its 
fearful loss of life? To high heaven and his country and mankind. 
Once aroused, the common sense of England will hurl him from 
his high office and, following the example of Gladstone, "whose 
wisdom still rules us from its urn," will halt her troops, wherever 
scattered, and bid them return to the constitutional and legal limits 
of her lawful domain. 

Gentlemen upon the other side have upon the rostrum and in 
this presence said it was our duty to interfere. The gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Shafroth] says it is our duty to offer medi- 
ation. Mr. Chairman, such doctrine is unknown in the law of na- 
tions, and such course upon our part would properly subject us to 
the charge of unwarranted meddlesomeness. We do not know 
that our offer would be acceptable to either party. The Boers, 
who have shown a disposition to take care of themselves, have 
not asked us to interfere, while Great Britain bears her defeats 
without complaining. Where does our duty lie? 

Much as we deplore war, sincerely as we would welcome peace, 
the war is not of our making and our sympathies must not be 
permitted to involve us. 

4051 



11 

While Secretary, Daniel Webster thus wrote to the President 

in 1852, as follows: 

It has never been the purpose of the Government of the United States to 
interpose, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of the States of Central Amer- 
ica, with a view to settle the controversies between them by any influence 
whatsoever exercised by this Government without their request or free con- 
sent. 

Mr. Everett, Secretary of State, in writing to Sir Edward Thorn- 
ton, the British minister, in September, 1879, apropos of the prop- 
osition to join with Great Britain and Germany in offering their 
mediation in the war then pending between Chili and Peru, made 
the following statement: 

1 am able to say, however, that our ministers have given and are giving 
attention to the wishes of th.s Government to procure its good offices in 
favor of peace at the earliest indication of the readiness of the belligerents 
to consider such good offices acceptable. 

Our course is plain. We must await events or expose our own 
country to criticism and possibly obloquy. The Boers in South 
Africa seem amply able to take care of themselves. [Applause.] 
And I nope and trust that no false sentimentality will prompt our 
country to enter upon any other course than will be creditable to 
it now and in the future. I would not have England crush the 
Boers; neither do I wish for England calamity within her proper 
and legitimate domain, and I do not believe the most ultra pro- 
Boer in the United States wishes any such destiny for that great 
Empire across the sea. 

Why, Mr. Chairman, what does it mean? It means that the 
policy of the colonial secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, is to bring down 
upon the heads of the common people of England the failure and 
fall of their country and their Government. Any man or party 
or set of men who wou|d wish such an end for the British Empire 
isth mghtless indeed. Are you talking for mere party advantage? 
How unjustifiable. Who constitutes the British Empire? Not 
Sir Joseph Chamberlain alone, but Sir William Vernon Harcourt 
as well and those whom he represents as the great leader of so 
many thousands of Liberals who oppose and think unwise the 
policy of Mr. Chamberlain in this crisis. 

Why, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Missouri [Mr, 
Clark] bring down ruin upon the common people of England? 
Great in her history, great in her sober, steady yeomanry, it is 

4051 



not the mere temporary representative in power, but it is the 
common people behind that representative, for whom I speak; and 
much as my sympathies go out to the Boers, much as I believe 
England to be wrong in this controversy, much as I believe that 
history will hold her forever the unlawful aggressor in the field of 
her present military operations, still I do wish for England honor, 
fame, and renown as a country, because I believe in the ultimate 
glorious destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race. 

Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the fact that the President 
has been urged again and again to mediate in this controversy. 
The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Shafroth] holds that he 
has this power of mediation at any time. A close reading of in- 
ternational law throws doubt upon this proposition. Indeed, if 
he goes according to the rule of nations, he must wait until one 
of the parties to the contest or both of them ask him to mediate 
or intervene. 

I find in this resolution which I hold in my hand, passed by over 
4,000 citizens of my home city at Grand Rapids, at a pro-Boer 
meeting, sympathizing strongly, as does every lover of liberty the 
world over, with the Boers — I find in the closing paragraph of this 
arraignment of Great Britain and her course a provision that the 
President shall be requested to mediate and offer his good offices 
' ' whenever it may be done within the rules of international law, " 
and I am ready tu await the action of the President. I am eager 
to follow in his lead. He can be trusted to do what is right, both 
for our country and for others, should they ask mediation. 

Many of us recall how we urged the President to take early ac- 
tion with reference to Cuba. Committees were appointed from 
this House to wait upon him and urge him that civilization and 
the people of the country wanted him to act. But he waited, 
with thoughtful hesitation, not wishing to be rushed unduly into 
a scene the end of which no man could foretell. And I recall 
how, sitting around his Cabinet table one da3 T , members of this 
House urged him to act promptly and vigorously. 

I know one gentleman, now in my hearing, who said to him, 
"Mr. President, those torpedo boats are upon the high sea. They 
will soon menace our harbors. We must have protection for our 
•coast cities. We think it is time for you to act." I recall the re- 

4051 



13 

ply, as do others sitting near me, when the President said, *' You 
ask me to act. You say you are afraid of the torpedo boats now 
upon the sea and headed for our country. Give yourself no un- 
easiness, sir. While I do not propose to go to war if it can be 
avoided, while I pray to God that we may be absolved from this ter- 
rible thing— I know what war is — while I shall not shrink from it 
if it comes, but would be saved from it if possible, if those torpedo 
boats come to our country our American Navy will take care of 
them, sir. Give yourself no uneasiness upon that point." [Ap- 
plause.] 

And so they did: and I recall with what splendid composure 
the President awaited the final outcome, while many were criti- 
cising him. Indeed, in some sections of the country he was hung 
in effigy. In the theaters his name was hissed; but splendidly, 
superbly, with great composure, he stood at the helm in the midst 
of the storm and awaited the final outcome. And when the time 
came to act, he acted in harmony with that judgment of which 
he alone seems to be capable, and met every situation that con- 
fronted the country with matchless tact and great ability, which 
covered our country with glory and imperishable renown. [Ap- 
plause.] That we were wiser in his leadership than we should 
have been without it everyone now concedes. That he was su- 
premely right and met the full measure of his responsibility all 
admit. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in this exigency, when he is asked to in- 
tervene, when he is asked to mediate, when he is asked to take 
action, shall we await the ripened judgment of his splendid 
mind, equal to every emergency, or shall we unduly force him 
when it is unnecessary? For my part, I am willing to follow the 
President. 

If he ever sees the time when he thinks it will be appropriate to 
intervene, so may it be; but until that time comes I do not be- 
lieve there is a single citizen of my district or State, I do not 
believe there is a single person in the United States, who, down 
deep in his heart, would have the President act otherwise than 
according to his own best judgment. He has led the country 
through many a perilous period. He will do it again. Thank 
God, 1 have never yet in the course of my life felt called upon to 
4051 



14 

criticise in severe or harsh language any President of the United 
States. My respect for that high office prompts me to pause, and 
my respect for its present occupant would "not permit severe criti- 
cism or abuse to be hurled at him without making an attempt in 
his defense. 

He is our President, no matter what political party puts him in 
power. He is the President of the whole people; and it ill be- 
comes any citizen of the country to abuse him without cause. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] The burden of the President 
of the United States is heavy enough without our adding greater or 
more onerous ones for him to carry. The people of rny district 
do not desire to embarrass the President, and our Democratic 
friends on the other side should not do so merely to meet the re- 
quirements of political exigencies. [Applause on the Republican 
side.] 

Mr. Chairman, why do not our Democratic opponents criticise 
something in the Administration of President McKinley at home? 
Not a single word of criticism upon the tariff law, which a special 
session of Congress put upon the statute books, reviving industry 
and giving employment to labor; not a single criticism about any 
of our internal affairs chargeable to the President. Instead, they 
carry us far out into the Pacific and to the Sulu Islands. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him 
a question? 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. The farther away their inquiry is 
directed the better the excuse for heaping opprobrium upon the 
President and his party. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Will my friend allow me to ask him a 
question? 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Certainly. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I understand you are ready to follow the 
President on the questions of the day. I want to ask the gentle- 
man if he is going with him in recommending free trade for Puerto 
Rico, or is he going to vote to tax them at 25 per cent? 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Then you will not go with the President. 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Yes; I am with the President, 

4051 



15 

and follow his leadership, because I believe it inspired by the 
highest wisdom and loftiest patriotism. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. He has recommended free trade, and tfte 
committee recommend 25 per cent tax. Are you going to vote for 
that, or are you going to vote for free trade and be with the Presi- 
dent? 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. I am going to stand with the Presi- 
dent. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is all right. 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH (continuing). The leader of our 
party and the embodiment of more wisdom than will ever be 
gathered up from all the cohorts of the Democracy of the North, 
East, South, or West. [Applause on the Republican side and in 
the galleries.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Applause in the galleries is not permissible. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I am glad the gentleman is with us in that. 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I reassert that they 
have not made a criticism upon our domestic affairs upon which 
they dare to go to the country in the next Presidential election. 
The} r know that factories have been opened as well as the mints. 
They know that the country is prosperous. We know it. From 
every State represented on the other side of this Chamber the 
uncontradicted testimony comes, while the great industries of my 
home city were never more prosperous. 

Twice a year the buyers of furniture throughout the United 
States make their way to the city of Grand Rapids. In the past, 
300 buyers, representing as many cities, filled the measure of our 
realization; but this year, this great year of Republican pros- 
perity, over 800 buyers, from States represented on the other side 
\>f the Chamber as well as this, have gone there to buy the handi- 
work of our genius. [Applause.] 

You can not stop this march of progress; you can not cripple 
the prosperity of our land. You know that your efforts are futile, 
and so you perch yourselves upon a very lofty plane and criticise 
our policy in the farthest nook of the world with which we may 
possibly have some temporary relation. 

No, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic party will never succeed by 
4051 



yiRARY _ OF CONGRESS # 



019 920 727 1 



16 



misrepresentations. The country is too wise: it knows their 
methods; it knows the results of their government, and they will 
av*>id you as surely as the time comes to test our strength. Will 
they nominate for President their last and only leader? Will he 
say that the annexation or attempted annexation in the Philip- 
pine Islands was unwise, when he fought to obtain this identical 
conquest? He advocated the payment of this money and he advo- 
cated the ratification of the treaty which meant the annexation of 
these islands. Will he go to the country upon a platform that he 
was or is opposed to that policy? The country will see through 
his sham. 

No, Mr. Chairman, this is too great a country for small eva- 
sions. The people are too sincere and devoted to it to be trifled 
with. Our struggles are our chaplets woven in the woof of his- 
tory. Mankind the world over shares in our triumphs. Where 
we think and act, and by action change into reality the dreams 
of optimists who love their fellows; where by suffering we wring 
from defeat the glories of victory, it seems to the listening nations 
of an awakened world that our heroic efforts are glorified and 
graced by the approval of heaven itself and redound to the benefit 
of the whole human race, and the spectacle is shown of the Giant 
of the West, with burnished shield and drawn sword, standing in 
the midst of the nations of earth as the champion of the oppressed, 
the defender of the weak, and the acknowledged arbiter of the 
eternal right. 

It was once said of the resurrection of Greece and the cession 
by Great Britain of Crete, Thessaly, Epirus, and the Ionian Isles, 
" Thus did the old Hellas arise from, the grave of nations; scorched 
by fire, riddled by shot, baptized by blood, she emerged victorious 
from the conflict. She achieved her independence because she 
proved herself worthy of it. She was trained to manhood in the 
only school of real improvement — the school of suffering." Thus 
our country was born, cradled, and reared, and for the incarna- 
tion of this mighty spirit I follow willingly and gladly the match- 
less leadership of William McKinley, President of an indissoluble 
and united country. [Great applause.] 

4051 

o 



■SEEL* con «ess 



019 920 S™'# 



